ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"

  • To: Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
  • From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:55:33 +0000


On 12 Jun 2010, at 04:08, Antony Van Couvering wrote:

> 
> This is why registries need the freedom to sell their own domain names 
> directly to the public.  Adding a TLD that is not likely to sell many names 
> is a non-starter for registrars, for the reasons that Jeff lays out.  Unless 
> there happens to be an existing registrar that serves your community/niche, 
> as a startup registry your offering could well be orphaned. 
> 
> Examples:
> 
> .kurd - no existing Kurdish-language registrar, or any in a Kurdish region  
> .zulu - no existing Zulu-language registrar, or any in a Zulu region
> .indigi - no existing registrar using any traditional indigenous language, or 
> in a traditional indigenous region
> .eus - no existing Basque-language registrar, or any in the Basque region
> .cym - no existing Welsh-language registrar, or any in Wales
> 
> ... there will certainly be other non-cultural/linguistic TLDs in the same 
> bind.
> 
> Does any registrar on this list want to commit to selling these?


Well since you *did* ask .. 

If .eus or .cym were available then I'd be more than happy to offer them 
(assuming that the rules etc., were viable to support)

>  If yes, is anyone willing to provide a local-language web site and customer 
> service?  

A registrar may not need to - a reseller could


>  Anyone?  Bueller?
> 
> Antony
> 
> P.S. Not picking on registrars, just making the point that new TLDs need to 
> be able to compete without one hand tied behind their backs. 
> 
> 
> On Jun 11, 2010, at 8:47 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Mike,
>> Let me take off my policy hat for a second and put on my GM of a Registrar 
>> hat and tackle this one because I think it is a valid question. 
>> 
>> The cost of adding a new TLD for a Registrar is high. Each Registry has 
>> their own contract, their own rules that must be dealt with and a great deal 
>> of work to connect to that Registry. Then once the TLD is connected on the 
>> back end , the Registrar must do all the work on the front end, the customer 
>> facing side. Add the TLD to their offerings, their purchase path and their 
>> marketing. The engineering, legal and marketing costs to add a TLD are not 
>> trivial so to force all Registrars to add all TLDs would cause enormous 
>> financial strain to Registrars and probably force most to shut down. Those 
>> that would still be around would have to increase prices just to be handle 
>> all this work so we would see a dramatic increase in the price of a domain. 
>> The Registry would also have much higher costs because they would need to 
>> offer equivalent access to each Registrar and the upgrades needed to do that 
>> would be enormous, especially for a new TLD. This would likely cause the 
>> wholesale price of a TLD from a Registry to go up dramatically. So increased 
>> prices from supplier and retailer. Not something we would like to see.
>> What would make this a double whammy is the idea that Registrars could not 
>> participate in applying for TLDs but would now be required to carry everyone 
>> else's TLD is incredibly unfair.
>> Sorry to be all doom and gloom, but from running a Registrar I can tell you 
>> that the idea of a Registrar having to offer all TLDs just could not work. 
>> 
>> 
>> Jeff Eckhaus
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
>> Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh [icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 5:15 PM
>> To: 'Michele Neylon :: Blacknight'; 'Milton L Mueller'
>> Cc: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Avri Doria'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
>> 
>> I think the point is that, if all registries must allow access to all
>> registrars, then why should all registrars not be forced to offer all TLDs?
>> 
>> 
>> It is an excellent question.
>> 
>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>> RODENBAUGH LAW
>> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
>> http://rodenbaugh.com
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:30 PM
>> To: Milton L Mueller
>> Cc: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11 Jun 2010, at 19:51, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> 
>>>> I do not get your argument of registries using being ineffective or
>>>> having to bear a large investment if they use registrars. Do not
>>>> registrars act as effective multipliers for most TLDs? Registrars also
>>>> reduce the need for end-customer support, thereby reducing costs. The
>>>> use of registrars will _help_ new TLDs to become viable, not obstruct
>>>> them.
>>> 
>>> If that's the case there's no need to force them to use registrars, and
>> (vice-versa) no need to require all registrars to carry all TLDs
>> 
>> Milton
>> 
>> Sorry, but where are "registrars required to carry all TLDs"?
>> 
>> Or is this a hypothetical?
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Michele
>> 
>> 
>>> Obviously the situation will vary from case to case.
>>> 
>> 
>> Mr Michele Neylon
>> Blacknight Solutions
>> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
>> ICANN Accredited Registrar
>> http://www.blacknight.com/
>> http://blog.blacknight.com/
>> http://mneylon.tel
>> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>> US: 213-233-1612
>> UK: 0844 484 9361
>> Locall: 1850 929 929
>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
>> -------------------------------
>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
> 
> 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy